Thinking Caps Please......

[VAfooter]

I think if I was going to set up trail cams to overlook a particular spot, I would set up at least three or four cams, and hopefully at least two, or maybe more, would be triggered. Obviously they would be separated and at a bit different distances from the spot so you get more than one angle.

With only one trail cam, it seems like numerous times you only get a partial figure that isn't very distinguishable, or it may not be in a good position to see any details, etc.

 

 

I always thought that two cameras pointed toward each other would prove interesting, especially with the reports of cameras being messed with but the culprit never quite showing up on video. I definitely believe that multiple cameras covering the same area would be a great experiment. However, most folks I suspect do not have the funds to supply multiple units to cover a single area.

[Martin]

GoPro on everyone's head or chest.

Hero3 package comes with 2x lithium batteries. Purchase 2x 64gb micro memory cards each person should get +/-4hrs per card/battery depending on res setting. 8 hours without recharge. Can use a/c adapter in car or standalone 12v battery to recharge.

Shouldn't take too long at an active area like Area X to get some kind of footage.

Setup cost approx. $400 per.

[southernyahoo]

 

 

Yes, I agree the technology for digital media is a bit slow on the uptake but doing a manual over ride of auto features might be possible. One would think that in order to catch things like lightning bolts via a strobe setting and placing the camera on a manually adjusted focus could be tried. A thin trip string 7-8 ft. from the building about 2-3 ft. off the ground might be an avenue to check out also. It's why the thread is titled the way it is. It's to brainstorm how to get a system like this to work as an alternative to IR since NAWAC does definitely think that it's the IR that causes the failure of cameras to get anything. Motion sensors too then are an obvious bust   

 

Something that perhaps not many people have considered is that the trail cams are deliberately designed to resist false triggers. This means that they may be optimized for game animals with short hair and a strong thermal signature in motion to trigger the motion sensor. I'm sure these cameras can miss an animal in their view from time to time, but if we are to make ground with the cameras, we have to understand why we might be missing BF aside from being absent in the area. 

 

Just another exc....possibility for their failure beyond BF's nearly psychic awareness. 

[hiflier]

Hello southernyahoo,

You bring up an interesting point. Are trail cams biased in ways that we aren't aware of? Now bears can have longish hair and I think cameras by and large don't have issues with that I'm fairly certain. Wouldn't it be funny if when cameras sensed anything over 5 ft. tall that they are biased to disregard it  It would mean the industry is........well, nevermind about that LOL.

 

Ok. lets say I've got my trusty Pentax MXZ plastic auto film camera out in the woods. I stuff it into the end of a hollow log and smear it with moss, covering it completely with only the lens showing. I've installed fresh lithium batteries and hid a flash attachment also with fresh batteries with it- inside the log again smeared with moss to hide the smell. I have attached the long (and relatively expensive) remote trigger switch and ran it out of the back end of the log. I've faced the log to aim down the trail.

 

Further down the trail I've run a black string a bit thicker than thread across the trail. One end is anchored to a tree or tall shrub about 5 ft. above the trail. The other end crosses the trail and passes through a fork in a small tree or shrub and makes a turn back towards the log. At the log the string passes over a branch and a rock is tied to it about a foot over the trigger button on the remote cable. The remote cable switch itself is lightly sandwiched in between two hinged pieces of flat wood and covered in moss. 

 

Animal (tall animal ) comes down to trail breaks the string, rock drops, remote switch gets triggered, camera and flash goes off one time or, if the camera is set to multi-frame, fire until a 24 frame roll of film is exhausted (about 8 seconds) and VOILA! At least one to 3 photos of at least a 5 ft. tall creature.......or the bird that flew through the string 

It's all equipment I already have and the set up is simple. I even envision it in a ball of leaves like a squirrel's nest in the crotch of a tree with maybe a 24 mm wide lens for a larger field of view. I'll have time to experiment with this in September when my next camping trip will be for two weeks in Down East Maine. It'll give a busy mind something to do

 

(dang but don't I love these emoticons)  

Edited August 25, 2015 by hiflier

[gigantor]

The problem I see with that is that you only get one trigger event...  also, if a human trips the string and gets poked in the eye...

Edited August 25, 2015 by gigantor

[Lake County Bigfooot]

My experience has been frustration, nothing would even seem to approach after several nights using the camera, the infer red is noticed by deer without a doubt,

I think it spooks off the creatures of the night.  I heard William Dranganis talk about his systems and attempts at inventing a camera system that could be effective,

his conclusion was that it was very difficult to fool these creatures into such a trap no matter how sophisticated the set up, they probably avoid such areas due to

observing our activity or by sound or smell emitted by the equipment, something gives it away and I am not suggesting extra sensory perception on their part, though

at times it could appear that is the case. Sound recorders on the other hand seem to spark curiosity, and even investigations, so why would they be averse to cameras and not sound, hummm....could they know the difference? The NAWAC did an exhaustive study using cameras and turned up very little over a several year

deployment in prime sasquatch territory and using large numbers of cameras placed strategically, so you tell me why they avoid these set ups, either they know, they

see, or they smell or possibly hear, or electronically sense them by some special adaptation.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[hiflier]

Hello gigantor,

 

There are no Humans around us where we camp. My scenario was hypothetical but I will be testing the idea even if it's only me walking through the string. Really, it's a state park so no hunters will be bushwacking anywhere, it's also on a peninsula with water on two sides, and nothing for a mile behind us until the ranger station. There is a "nature trail" along the water far away and about 100 ft. below our site that goes from the ranger station to a trail head 1/4 mile down the road from us. We are at the dead end of a 300 ft. spur road off the main park road. In September with everyone back at school the park is as unpopulated as all get out. It's our favorite time to camp. Only once two years ago did out dog bark at a loud twig snap way down the hill from us in the woods. 

 

I would never set anything up if I thought for a second there was any chance of any Human getting hurt. We're very isolated in terms of the park's layout and terrain. High on a hill, dead end road, surrounded by woods, I'm not worried about a piece of thin string across a leaf littered trail close to the site that most folks would even know was an animal path even if they stayed at the site themselves. The campsite in in the top center of the image:

 

 

 

[Yuchi1]

We had three (3) cameras at divergent angles covering a bait station with duck carcasses placed ~24" below the camera positions. The bait kept disappearing with no feathers, entrails, etc. left behind for ~2 weeks, until we ran out of the bait. Not a single picture was snapped during this time period. We next baited with ~25# of cold cuts and they sat untouched until the pile turned into a gooey mass of carcinogenic matter. Apparently, things in the forest have more sense than many of us about what they consider edible foodstuff.

[gigantor]

@hiflier, Not trying to discourage you bud, wish you luck. I'm just saying...

 

Even if it doesn't work, it's fun being out in the wilderness and trying!  That's why we do it.

Edited August 25, 2015 by gigantor

[hiflier]

Hello gigantor,

 

Aw heck yes it's fun. And beautiful too. I've always liked having a project to fool around with during the annual September two weeks. One year I messed around trying to make a lightning detector. I love to think and tinker when there's absolutely nothing pressing. And it probably WON'T work but I'll document even my mistakes. Guaranteed at the end of two weeks I will have ironed out all the bugs. I wish though I was good enough to incorporate a sound switch for everything so I could eliminate the string/rock fiasco. But then it would be too easy to be fun right?

 

@ Yuchi1,

 

Looks as though that would be the perfect set up for the pressure plate system? Or even a trip wire perimeter? I wouldn't rule out an Eagle grab though- hit and run- swoop in swoop out. Doesn't really sound like something a Vulture would do.

Edited August 25, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I think you listed every explanation that has ever been put forth for why trail cameras do not seem to capture bigfoot, lol. A very simple idea that I have had, although I may have mentioned it before, is to use a particular angle with a trail cam. For instance, if you could place it on the ground, or anywhere, and cover it in such a way that the closer someone moved towards the camera, the more concealed the camera was. This would be accomplished by extending some type of cover well beyond the camera itself. Say you had a camera on the ground and angled slightly to get a clear picture at so many yards away. Over the top of this camera you use brush or a board or something, and this cover sticks out at an upward angle from the camera. Not a steep angle, but a smaller, more gradual one. I realize this may be hard to comprehend, but I think it could potentially solve the problem of a sasquatch actually seeing the camera itself. However, because of the necessity of a cover of some sort, things would still appear out of place, if that matters.

 

Another idea is quite similar, and is what snipers do. When they fire from a room they do not stick their barrel out of a window or opening, but instead position themselves far back into the room, looking through a loophole. This same principle could be applied to a game camera, and would mean that an animal is much less likely to notice it. Instead of placing the camera directly in front of an area the animal would likely approach from, it could be placed at an angle. For instance, the camera might pick up more of a side view than head on view, and the potential bigfoot probably would not notice the camera until they were already within the camera's line of sight. Again, because this requires some type of covering, extra care would have to be taken to make it appear natural. I would think that hiding it within a tree could work. Plus, using foliage itself for this type of project would probably diminish the chances of things appearing unnatural.

 

I have also considered using one or more mirrors to bounce the light in a designed way, so that a camera would not have to point directly at a bigfoot to capture it. Obviously this would mean having a giant mirror in the woods, which is easy to see. However, have you ever seen those mirror houses on TV or the internet? Because they are reflecting foliage they are kind of difficult to spot. I think it would be possible to position them in such a way that they are not easily noticeable, but I don't really know how practical such an idea really is.

 

One thing I have repeatedly advocated in the past, although I do not know if anyone has ever really tried it, is to use a camera placed dozens of feet off of the ground, angled downward. I do not know if conventional trail cameras would be sufficient for such a distance, but if there is a camera that gives a wide enough view, and can see clearly at a distance, it is much more likely that the camera would see a bigfoot before a bigfoot saw the camera. That is part of the reason to place it high in the tree, to afford a better view without all the obstructions that are closer to the ground.

 

In fact, I think the best solution is to just use a camera that can see much farther than the bigfoot. If there is a weatherproof camera that records constant video, or even takes an image every few seconds, but which can also see for a great distance, it would probably have a much greater chance of being successful when compared to regular trail cameras. A telephoto lens or something like that, which can see really far, would be extremely beneficial to a sasquatch hunter. Of course they would have to position the camera in a well thought out location. Ideally the bigfoot should approach from the side with the camera, otherwise it is pointless.

 

Not being a camera guy, there is something I was wondering about when it comes to IR beams and cameras. Does a camera that automatically takes a picture very 5 seconds or so have a beam of IR radiation? It seems to me that the only purpose for such a beam would be as a motion trigger, on those cameras where motion sets it off. The camera itself is gathering light, not shooting out IR beams or anything. So if this is the case wouldn't it be better to use an automatic camera, or a camera that simply records video? Then you could eliminate the possibility of bigfoot seeing the beam of infrared light. I'm not convinced they can see such low frequencies, but it doesn't hurt to be cautious just in case. So anyway, those are the few ideas I have, if anyone is interested.

[gigantor]

@hiflier - check this out https://www.electronickits.com/sound-activated-switch-kit/

[hiflier]

Hello JiggyPotamus,

Then consider me "anyone because of course I'm interested. I liked all of your ideas mostly because of the thought that went into each one. And you detailed the set ups and your reasons for them quite adequately thank you very much The cameras called Plot Watchers do not emit any kind of a beam and can be programmed for a consistent frame time like every 5 minutes of just about anything else. They are only for day use however for some areas that may be all that is required.

I like the high angled tree idea and way try that along with my film camera set up with the trip string. Stuffing the camera into a log was the thinking either with or without a flash attachment depending on my day only or if I want night time as well. Inside a log basically because the camera isn't designed for wet weather unless I purchase a case like for under water use as in scuba diving.

Anyway thanks for the input. Over time I may test out all the methods except the one using mirrors.

@ gigantor,

I'd love to but the page won't display? I did find these two types though:

http://www.canakit.com/electronic-kits?cat=13

Edited August 25, 2015 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Gigantor and hiflier, those sound switches look interesting. I like your thread hiflier. I'm with those that a picture won't prove anything. But I'm also in agreement that it would be satisfying to get a good picture. I've posted about the Plotwatcher in a couple threads. They can take identifiable photos out to over 150' or further with the 2X lens. My idea was to place them high, at least 16' aimed at the next camera in a line across a known travel corridor (I have one in mind). Your only limited by the funds to buy more cameras. In my case that isn't very many. Of course it's only a daylight proposition. It would also take days to scan all the taken footage.

[JDL]

There are different classes of camera, each with their own intended purpose.

 

Game cams fall short for the reasons discussed above, but there are other types.  Security cams, cams used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to surreptitiously collect video and images, even the newest cell phones have some advanced capabilities, including thermal and other spectra that aren't commonly considered.  No matter what type of cam someone might use, there are power requirements, but there are now backpacks with solar collectors designed to keep a phone charged.  You wouldn't need an entire backpack, just the collectors and a small array of cell phone batteries to be charged, and wired to the camera.  All I'm saying here is that there are more options out there than usually considered, and I think that a hybrid device may end up being the best bet.  Something spec designed.

 

Employment strategies go hand in hand with the technology itself.  I don't know if anyone has suggested placing the cameras in groups such that one is most obvious, and the others are positioned to capture images of bigfoot as they either attempt to avoid/bypass, or tamper with the obvious camera.  I also believe that a passive infrared camera mounted on a vehicle will be less obvious. 

 

There's some wisdom in the thought of letting the bigfoot come to you, and showing up at a campsite with your vehicle or packed in gear pre-instrumented, then going about the normal business of camping, etc.

Edited August 25, 2015 by JDL